|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 5, 2015 7:04:14 GMT -6
Ok, now that I'm at a computer and not my cell phone I'll type out why this is a good thing in plain English. #1. You don't have a fucking clue about what this means for the "freedom" of the internet. The government isn't taking it over or anything of that nature. It's giving the power back to the people who utilize it, not the companies that use their greed to screw over the people. The government actually established the internet YEARS ago. Not Time Warner. Not Comcrap. Not AT&T. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet ARPANET, which was a government program set up the internet protocol as we know it today. So if you don't understand it, or know what it is, just shut it. #2. You don't have a fucking clue about Title II classification. The internet is a utility. Phones are a "Utility". This won't cost Comcast/TWC/etc anything more than what they have now. Without that classification the major broadband providers could charge companies with sites, as well as the consumers even more money if they want the "fast lane". They want to fuck over everyone they can to make the shareholders happy. Apparently you want them to fuck you over even harder. #3 You don't have a fucking clue about anything related to the internet. All you know about it is that it's a way for you to get your right wing news quickly and to spread that nonsense on message boards and farcebook to the other low information people who believe any shit they see. Title II classification has NOTHING to do with Google, yahoo, messageboards, netflix, etc. It has to deal with the companies that provide that connection to consumers. Google is expanding out it's fiber network and they are for it, even though they are slowly breaking into the internet game of providing that service to people. TWC/COX/Comcast have some rather aggressive steps to prevent municipal internet programs as many states have banned that in the favor of the big ISP's. Cedar Falls is one example of one being successful. They lobby the shit out of states and federal to work the game in their favor. Why is it that there may be 3 providers in a city, yet there are few overlapping areas of coverage? Because they want it that way. They know that people want/need the internet at home. They are losing out on their cable tv business by the exploding number of cord cutters who are sick of paying $100+ for tv and instead pay $50 plus netflix, etc. But those folks still need the internet from them no matter how much they may hate mediacom or whomever. #4. You don't know shit about the internet. And fuck you. /Meant with all the love in the world Successfully trolled by Tweeter
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 5, 2015 7:12:16 GMT -6
Ok, now that I'm at a computer and not my cell phone I'll type out why this is a good thing in plain English. #1. You don't have a fucking clue about what this means for the "freedom" of the internet. The government isn't taking it over or anything of that nature. It's giving the power back to the people who utilize it, not the companies that use their greed to screw over the people. The government actually established the internet YEARS ago. Not Time Warner. Not Comcrap. Not AT&T. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Internet ARPANET, which was a government program set up the internet protocol as we know it today. So if you don't understand it, or know what it is, just shut it. #2. You don't have a fucking clue about Title II classification. The internet is a utility. Phones are a "Utility". This won't cost Comcast/TWC/etc anything more than what they have now. Without that classification the major broadband providers could charge companies with sites, as well as the consumers even more money if they want the "fast lane". They want to fuck over everyone they can to make the shareholders happy. Apparently you want them to fuck you over even harder. #3 You don't have a fucking clue about anything related to the internet. All you know about it is that it's a way for you to get your right wing news quickly and to spread that nonsense on message boards and farcebook to the other low information people who believe any shit they see. Title II classification has NOTHING to do with Google, yahoo, messageboards, netflix, etc. It has to deal with the companies that provide that connection to consumers. Google is expanding out it's fiber network and they are for it, even though they are slowly breaking into the internet game of providing that service to people. TWC/COX/Comcast have some rather aggressive steps to prevent municipal internet programs as many states have banned that in the favor of the big ISP's. Cedar Falls is one example of one being successful. They lobby the shit out of states and federal to work the game in their favor. Why is it that there may be 3 providers in a city, yet there are few overlapping areas of coverage? Because they want it that way. They know that people want/need the internet at home. They are losing out on their cable tv business by the exploding number of cord cutters who are sick of paying $100+ for tv and instead pay $50 plus netflix, etc. But those folks still need the internet from them no matter how much they may hate mediacom or whomever. #4. You don't know shit about the internet. And fuck you. /Meant with all the love in the world Successfully trolled by Tweeter Not a troll if he honestly and deeply believes that shit. And it's not a troll if I don't want it to be you hipster beard wishing faggot.
|
|
|
Post by Ginger on Feb 5, 2015 7:19:21 GMT -6
Successfully trolled by Tweeter Not a troll if he honestly and deeply believes that shit. And it's not a troll if I don't want it to be you hipster beard wishing faggot. I thought it was a fine post, young man.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Slick on Feb 5, 2015 7:19:36 GMT -6
Tweeter don't troll.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 5, 2015 7:23:26 GMT -6
Of course, this classification will also mean that Google would actually get "pole" access and could actually roll out there fiber far more quickly as they won't need to purchase easements. Who wouldn't want 1gb speeds? I'd sign up for it in a heartbeat.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Slick on Feb 5, 2015 7:23:44 GMT -6
Successfully trolled by Tweeter Not a troll if he honestly and deeply believes that shit. And it's not a troll if I don't want it to be you hipster beard wishing faggot. I created the Tricky Dicky handle for the express purpose of trolling Tweeter. He responded by logging on to srs website with no less than three alts In order to go through my posting history and thumbs down my posts with all three alts. The time that must have taken him. Troll level: trolololololololol.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Feb 5, 2015 7:26:39 GMT -6
Not a troll if he honestly and deeply believes that shit. And it's not a troll if I don't want it to be you hipster beard wishing faggot. I created the Tricky Dicky handle for the express purpose of trolling Tweeter. He responded by logging on to srs website with no less than three alts In order to go through my posting history and thumbs down my posts with all three alts. The time that must have taken him. Troll level: trolololololololol.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 5, 2015 8:12:48 GMT -6
Monopoly equals liberty. And don't you forget it.
Yours truly,
Orwell
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 5, 2015 9:07:30 GMT -6
Monopoly equals liberty. And don't you forget it. Yours truly, Orwell Net neutrality will only help Google take over the universe. Google is run by left-wing, Frisco ghey, progressives...just like Obama. We're through the looking glass here people.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Feb 5, 2015 9:51:05 GMT -6
Monopoly equals liberty. And don't you forget it. Yours truly, Orwell Net neutrality will only help Google take over the universe. Google is run by left-wing, Frisco ghey, progressives...just like Obama. We're through the looking glass here people.
|
|
|
Post by Presidential Immunity Cock on Feb 5, 2015 10:29:50 GMT -6
THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS YOU COCKSMOKER!
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 5, 2015 10:47:02 GMT -6
But don't take my word for it. How about a former FCC official, an expert in all things interwebz: Not that it matters, bince you're knee deep in your own derp anyways, but that lobbyist for the American Enterprise Institute is a former FTC official, not an FCC official. That he's full of bullshit is a discussion not even worth having.
|
|
|
Post by egadsto on Feb 5, 2015 10:56:51 GMT -6
But don't take my word for it. How about a former FCC official, an expert in all things interwebz: Not that it matters, bince you're knee deep in your own derp anyways, but that lobbyist for the American Enterprise Institute is a former FTC official, not an FCC official. That he's full of bullshit is a discussion not even worth having.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 5, 2015 11:04:51 GMT -6
But don't take my word for it. How about a former FCC official, an expert in all things interwebz: Don't Make The Internet A 'Public Utility' (I guess that means someone who knows about this stuff knows the internet currently is NOT a public utility) Since its commercialization by the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the Internet has stood as a monument to the success of American entrepreneurship and innovation, a testament to the power of free markets largely unfettered by the dead hand of government regulation. The Federal Communications Commission will try to end that later this month, upending two decades of bipartisan precedent by declaring the Internet to be a “public utility.”
We know what public utilities are; economists call them “natural monopolies.” Water and gas pipes; electricity distribution; bridges and tunnels. The Internet is not a monopoly. Wireline and wireless carriers compete – and innovate – at a furious pace.
Utilities, on the other hand, operate where it makes sense to have just one provider, because the costs of operating a second one are too high to justify the exercise. We regulate public utilities because they are, by definition, monopolies – but the costs of regulation are high. Rather than business decisions being made in the marketplace, they are contrived by politicians and bureaucrats who are, in turn, influenced by the lobbying campaigns not just of the utilities but of everyone with a stake – customers, suppliers and labor unions all get involved.
Any notion that such processes are “above politics” has been put to the lie by the F.C.C. itself, which has allowed its net neutrality rulemaking to be turned into a political circus of the first order.
The result is that public utilities are among our least innovative, worst-performing industries. Search the phrase “America’s aging infrastructure” and you will find dozens of articles and studies detailing lack of adequate investment in our bridges, gas pipelines, electricity transmission systems and other utilities. Sixty-two percent of the gas mains in Washington, for example, are more than 50 years old.
Declaring the Internet a public utility is not necessary, and it will surely prove to be unwise.And for all of you who still think Obama's internet regulation plan is a good thing, just know that one day the White House will be occupied by a Republican who in turn will be able to appoint commissioners and influence decisions at the FCC. Do you really want the interwebz in the handz of evil Republicants? IT'S ALREADY TREATED AS A FUCKING DE FACTO PUBLIC UTILITY. THAT IS THE STATUS QUO.And it werks.
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 5, 2015 11:23:58 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by TaterWanger on Feb 5, 2015 12:36:47 GMT -6
This is a more spectacular tweeter fail than normal.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 5, 2015 13:07:36 GMT -6
Monopoly equals liberty. And don't you forget it. Yours truly, Orwell The current broadband monopolies are the result of government regulation. Cable companies raced for charters to be an exclusive provider and exclusivity was seen as a necessary condition precedent to the infrastructure buildout. Bince I've lived in NYC, Chicagoland and Tokyo most of mah adult life, I've not had to deal with the shit Mediacom or similar monopolists in shitbag rural areas deals up, but I've gotta presume it's bad. But ultimately, it seems to me unlikely that any amount of federal regulation will make it economically viable for the buildout of a competing set of infrastructure in Colfax, Iowa. I don't give a fuck, though, because I get Comcast cable for virtually free (we granted them an easement for a major switching station on our roof) and if I get pissed at their internet, I can get AT&T fiber installed in 3 fucking days. Based on the rate I've seen technological advancements accelerate, I'm confident that whatever shitass regulatory regime Google is going to try and buy will be antiquated inside of a decade. Once the regulatory dinosaur gets its hands on the last mile, we'll see tremendous amounts of capital expended trying to circumvent expensive last mile infrastructure and regulations and over the air shit will advance by leaps and bounds. Thank God the government stayed the fuck out of the way when Sprint and MCI shattered the oh so benevolent and highly regulated AT&T long distance monopoly through the use of microwaves and fiber or else we'd still be paying twenty god damned cents a minute for long distance calls. I don't remember 1980, but I know tech shit was way better in '90 than it was in mah earliest memories, as I went from Atari to Nintendo. From '90 to 2000, shit exploded. Internet. 2000 to 2010 saw a sea change in cellular shit and internet fucking exploded. 2010-2020 is already shaping up to be insane and 2020-2030 is going to be fucking nutsoid. These guys are pissing into the fucking wind (which is to say they will have a lot of piss on their pants, which for the record is separate and distinct than pissing in one's pants).
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 5, 2015 13:18:27 GMT -6
Look, first off, if you're gonna live in Colfax, Iowa, you deserve to be deprived of high speed internet. Poor life choices have consequences.
I do believe that you just argued that application of Title II will in some roundabout way result in better technology by fucking Big Broadband in the stinky butthole.
So what's not to love?
|
|
|
Post by Incogayno. on Feb 5, 2015 13:20:45 GMT -6
Fuck, even here in Fairfax, I can get 300 mbps plus. fiber FTW!
|
|
|
Post by GhostMod 5000 on Feb 5, 2015 13:24:48 GMT -6
Monopoly equals liberty. And don't you forget it. Yours truly, Orwell The current broadband monopolies are the result of government regulation. Cable companies raced for charters to be an exclusive provider and exclusivity was seen as a necessary condition precedent to the infrastructure buildout. Bince I've lived in NYC, Chicagoland and Tokyo most of mah adult life, I've not had to deal with the shit Mediacom or similar monopolists in shitbag rural areas deals up, but I've gotta presume it's bad. But ultimately, it seems to me unlikely that any amount of federal regulation will make it economically viable for the buildout of a competing set of infrastructure in Colfax, Iowa. I don't give a fuck, though, because I get Comcast cable for virtually free (we granted them an easement for a major switching station on our roof) and if I get pissed at their internet, I can get AT&T fiber installed in 3 fucking days. Based on the rate I've seen technological advancements accelerate, I'm confident that whatever shitass regulatory regime Google is going to try and buy will be antiquated inside of a decade. Once the regulatory dinosaur gets its hands on the last mile, we'll see tremendous amounts of capital expended trying to circumvent expensive last mile infrastructure and regulations and over the air shit will advance by leaps and bounds. Thank God the government stayed the fuck out of the way when Sprint and MCI shattered the oh so benevolent and highly regulated AT&T long distance monopoly through the use of microwaves and fiber or else we'd still be paying twenty god damned cents a minute for long distance calls. I don't remember 1980, but I know tech shit was way better in '90 than it was in mah earliest memories, as I went from Atari to Nintendo. From '90 to 2000, shit exploded. Internet. 2000 to 2010 saw a sea change in cellular shit and internet fucking exploded. 2010-2020 is already shaping up to be insane and 2020-2030 is going to be fucking nutsoid. These guys are pissing into the fucking wind (which is to say they will have a lot of piss on their pants, which for the record is separate and distinct than pissing in one's pants). You're the expert
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 6, 2015 11:33:41 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by thunderhawk on Feb 11, 2015 11:51:20 GMT -6
Dems on FEC open to new regulations on donors, InternetAdmit it, libtards. It's just too fucking attractive to try to get your hands on the interwebz. And that's exactly what Obama's FEC is aiming to do. Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.
During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet. Because knowing who's purchasing our politicians is tyranny?
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 11, 2015 11:59:10 GMT -6
Blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, the government needs but one statute to "regulate" the internet from a consumer perspective. Clause (a) - definitions Clause (b) - each ISP shall provide a representation to each subscriber to its service of the minimum speed the subscriber will receive. Clause (c) - each ISP, other than during a force majeure event, shall deliver or cause to be delivered, connectivity to the internet that complies with the minimum speed representation set forth in clause (b) at least 99.9% of the time. Clause (d) - failure to comply with the speed representation or uptime requirement set forth in clause (c) above in any given month shall entitle the subscriber to free internet for the relevant month. There's honestly like 20 fucking guys in the private practice FCC bar who understand what the fuck is buried in the USC and CFR that suddenly will apply to the interwebs. Easements and shit for competing fiber lines should be a local issue because if you're rolling U-Verse and are happy with it, there is no fucking way you should have to cede your land to the liberal fascists so some fuck can trench your god damned yard. The ISPs lie like a motherfucker on speeds and they should have their feet held to the fire on minimum speeds and uptime, but they should not precluded from bartering with some content providers for higher speeds. No customer is made worse off if he pays for and has a steady 25 MB/sec download speed and it gets boosted to 50 MB/sec when he uses Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by NOTTHOR on Feb 11, 2015 12:05:18 GMT -6
Dems on FEC open to new regulations on donors, InternetAdmit it, libtards. It's just too fucking attractive to try to get your hands on the interwebz. And that's exactly what Obama's FEC is aiming to do. Claiming that thousands of public comments condemning “dark money” in politics can’t be ignored, the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission on Wednesday appeared ready to open the door to new regulations on donors, bloggers and others who use the Internet to influence policy and campaigns.
During a broad FEC hearing to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision that eliminated some donor limits, proponents encouraged the agency to draw up new funding disclosure rules and require even third-party internet-based groups to reveal donors, a move that would extinguish a 2006 decision to keep the agency’s hands off the Internet. Because knowing who's purchasing our politicians is tyranny? Currently, the Left in this country has sort of a Hitler Youth-esque quality about people who hold differing political beliefs. In a decade, that may shift the other way. Who knows? I get it, there is no penumbral right to privacy unless you're talking about terminating some unborn kid's life. Irregardless, "knowing who's purchasing our politicians" serves very little purpose because at the end of the day, while it is illegal to purchase a politician, it appears to happen frequently and no one ever fucking goes to jail for it. That's why I believe in smaller government. If the government has nothing to sell, the market for politicians will dry up.
|
|
|
Post by TaterWanger on Feb 11, 2015 13:17:50 GMT -6
Blah, blah, blah. At the end of the day, the government needs but one statute to "regulate" the internet from a consumer perspective. Clause (a) - definitions Clause (b) - each ISP shall provide a representation to each subscriber to its service of the minimum speed the subscriber will receive. Clause (c) - each ISP, other than during a force majeure event, shall deliver or cause to be delivered, connectivity to the internet that complies with the minimum speed representation set forth in clause (b) at least 99.9% of the time. Clause (d) - failure to comply with the speed representation or uptime requirement set forth in clause (c) above in any given month shall entitle the subscriber to free internet for the relevant month. There's honestly like 20 fucking guys in the private practice FCC bar who understand what the fuck is buried in the USC and CFR that suddenly will apply to the interwebs. Easements and shit for competing fiber lines should be a local issue because if you're rolling U-Verse and are happy with it, there is no fucking way you should have to cede your land to the liberal fascists so some fuck can trench your god damned yard. The ISPs lie like a motherfucker on speeds and they should have their feet held to the fire on minimum speeds and uptime, but they should not precluded from bartering with some content providers for higher speeds. No customer is made worse off if he pays for and has a steady 25 MB/sec download speed and it gets boosted to 50 MB/sec when he uses Netflix. You spelt "major" wrong.
|
|